The working propellants are consumed with the tank that contains the very propellants. The tank is degraded and consumed by the rocketâ€™s engine. The real time reduction of the tank's mass will help the rocket to accelerate faster. Also, the instantaneous kinetic energy of the consumable tank is not discarded but is redirected toward useful work by providing extra propellant mass, thus giving it extra impulse. The tankâ€™s structure may be overbuilt for increased safety or for greater pressures tolerance because the mass margins of rocketâ€™s hardware to propellant may be increased without huge penalty in efficiency. With increased tankâ€™s pressure itâ€™s possible to forgo rocket engineâ€™s high-pressure-pumps and possibly propellant cryogenics.

Another alternative to this method is 'balloon rocket'. The balloon-rocket will float to high altitude and fire up on it own. Most likely the balloon-rocket will be carried by a booster to 150km altitude. At 150km the balloon-rocket will be inflated from the top of the booster
and ignited. In this alternative the high pressure pumps will be required to feed the rocket's engines. The size of the balloon at high altitude will play insignificant part in atmospheric drag.

In these two alternatives the rocket engineâ€™s internal-burning-surfaces (such as combustion chamber, throat, nozzle, etc.) will be constantly coated with renewable film that will be supplied by the degradation of the walls of the tanks or of the 'balloon-tanks'. The film will be reduced into exhaust at the end of a nozzle. The combustion chamber, throat, nozzle can be built out of carbon fibers or titanium because most of the heat energy will be carried away by the film of the degraded tank's material, thus protecting them from high temperatures. Protection from high temperatures gives more reason for these engines to be reusable. After the engines are used for LEO delivery they may be disassembled in space and reused on other space hardwares.

Also, another advantage is that different orbits/inclinations will be easier to achieve because these rockets may be launched with little consideration where the stages will fall (i.e., no stages are dropped everything is reused). This will increase the number of launch points. The points or ports that closely fit a particular orbit will be used. Multiple launch pads will eliminate the need for complicated maneuvering, thus almost always further improving launch payload parameters by selecting appropriate geographical location during launch.

All-in-all the consumable high-pressure-tanks for rockets will increase its payload regardless of where they are launched. The increased mass margins of the rocketâ€™s hardware will enable the rocket technology to be domesticated by less qualified craftsmanship and thus readily commercialized by business.

The working propellants are consumed with the tank that contains the very propellants. The tank is degraded and consumed by the rocketâ€™s engine. The real time reduction of the tank's mass will help the rocket to accelerate faster. Also, the instantaneous kinetic energy of the consumable tank is not discarded but is redirected toward useful work by providing extra propellant mass, thus giving it extra impulse. The tankâ€™s structure may be overbuilt for increased safety or for greater pressures tolerance because the mass margins of rocketâ€™s hardware to propellant may be increased without huge penalty in efficiency. With increased tankâ€™s pressure itâ€™s possible to forgo rocket engineâ€™s high-pressure-pumps and possibly propellant cryogenics.

Another alternative to this method is 'balloon rocket'. The balloon-rocket will float to high altitude and fire up on it own. Most likely the balloon-rocket will be carried by a booster to 150km altitude. At 150km the balloon-rocket will be inflated from the top of the boosterand ignited. In this alternative the high pressure pumps will be required to feed the rocket's engines. The size of the balloon at high altitude will play insignificant part in atmospheric drag.

In these two alternatives the rocket engineâ€™s internal-burning-surfaces (such as combustion chamber, throat, nozzle, etc.) will be constantly coated with renewable film that will be supplied by the degradation of the walls of the tanks or of the 'balloon-tanks'. The film will be reduced into exhaust at the end of a nozzle. The combustion chamber, throat, nozzle can be built out of carbon fibers or titanium because most of the heat energy will be carried away by the film of the degraded tank's material, thus protecting them from high temperatures. Protection from high temperatures gives more reason for these engines to be reusable. After the engines are used for LEO delivery they may be disassembled in space and reused on other space hardwares.

Also, another advantage is that different orbits/inclinations will be easier to achieve because these rockets may be launched with little consideration where the stages will fall (i.e., no stages are dropped everything is reused). This will increase the number of launch points. The points or ports that closely fit a particular orbit will be used. Multiple launch pads will eliminate the need for complicated maneuvering, thus almost always further improving launch payload parameters by selecting appropriate geographical location during launch.

All-in-all the consumable high-pressure-tanks for rockets will increase its payload regardless of where they are launched. The increased mass margins of the rocketâ€™s hardware will enable the rocket technology to be domesticated by less qualified craftsmanship and thus readily commercialized by business.

Keep thinking outside the box I'm listening. I need more information about "practical applacation" IE the "time machine" 2007 Like what material would do that for instance something to compair it to in the real world. I'm not following.

Plastics and even wood will work. In 1944s Germany used some of its war planes build out of wood. In our case, here, wood also serves as fuel and provides structural support for the rocket. We need some material with the following characteristics: light weight, strong, energetic (in terms that it will require list amount of oxidizer for its reduction and will return the greatest amount of energy), economical. I'd say nylon is very competitive by the above definition.

Monroe wrote:

Keep thinking outside the box I'm listening. I need more information about "practical applacation" IE the "time machine" 2007 Like what material would do that for instance something to compair it to in the real world. I'm not following.

All right, hold your horses. This board isn't that active, sometimes it takes a few days.

ykoval wrote:

The working propellants are consumed with the tank that contains the very propellants. The tank is degraded and consumed by the rocketâ€™s engine. The real time reduction of the tank's mass will help the rocket to accelerate faster.[/quote[

How do you propose to build this? You can't screw a rocket engine to the bottom of a bubble of liquid, so I guess it would basically be a solid rocket without the wrapping around the fuel? You would only be able to use it until the remaining fuel on the outside is too thin to counter the pressure of the combustion inside, at which point the thing would leak and burn or even explode. Solid rocket fuel is probably weaker per unit mass than aluminium or whatever they make the shells of these things off, and then it would be more efficient to make that outer shell out of aluminium rather than rocket fuel. At which point you'd have an ordinary solid fuel rocket.

Quote:

Another alternative to this method is 'balloon rocket'. The balloon-rocket will float to high altitude and fire up on it own. Most likely the balloon-rocket will be carried by a booster to 150km altitude. At 150km the balloon-rocket will be inflated from the top of the booster and ignited. In this alternative the high pressure pumps will be required to feed the rocket's engines. The size of the balloon at high altitude will play insignificant part in atmospheric drag.

Unfortunately, that same atmosphere that gives drag also gives the balloon its lift. Launching a rocket from under a balloon has been suggested and done before though, by e.g. JP Aerospace.

Good point. There are several ways to do this. Imagine a pipe capped on the bottom with a 'cap'. The cap is the unit that has rocket engine(s), control, among other things. This cap (i.e., the unit) screws into the pipe as the propellants are consumed and the pipe shortens. Since, the pipe's (i.e., propellant tank's) length decreases the pressure is maintained. In essence, the screwing mechanism of the cap into the pipe is in effect acts as the pump. The pipe's material will be pushed and funneled by the threading action into rocket's engine. If the tanks material is fuel and the inside contents of the tank is oxidizer then the rocket is a two part propellant. It is very simple in principle, but in real applications it will be much more complicated than that. For instance, the inside surface of the pipe will have to have a protective coat against oxidation reaction occurring inside the pipe. The pressure inside the tank will have to be maintained greater than in the engine.

Monroe wrote:

how could the tank degrade and still hold pressure? Where is the combustion taking place inside the tank?

There are several ways to do this. Imagine a pipe capped on the bottom with a 'cap'. The cap is the unit that has rocket engine(s), control, among other things. This cap (i.e., the unit) screws into the pipe as the propellants are consumed and the pipe shortens. Since, the pipe's (i.e., propellant tank's) length decreases the pressure is maintained. In essence, the screwing mechanism of the cap into the pipe is in effect acts as the pump. The pipe's material will be pushed and funneled by the threading action into rocket's engine. If the tanks material is fuel and the inside contents of the tank is oxidizer then the rocket is a two part propellant. It is very simple in principle, but in real applications it will be much more complicated than that. For instance, the inside surface of the pipe will have to have a protective coat against oxidation reaction occurring inside the pipe. The pressure inside the tank will have to be maintained greater than in the engine.

The balloon is the rocket by itself and will consume its membrane as fuel. There are limitless paths towards implimitation on how the membrane will be pulled inside the rocket engine. Also, balloon rocket will have to have its own high pressure pump for oxidizer.

What do you mean by, "This board isn't that active, sometimes it takes a few days."?

Lourens wrote:

All right, hold your horses. This board isn't that active, sometimes it takes a few days.

ykoval wrote:

The working propellants are consumed with the tank that contains the very propellants. The tank is degraded and consumed by the rocketâ€™s engine. The real time reduction of the tank's mass will help the rocket to accelerate faster.[/quote[

How do you propose to build this? You can't screw a rocket engine to the bottom of a bubble of liquid, so I guess it would basically be a solid rocket without the wrapping around the fuel? You would only be able to use it until the remaining fuel on the outside is too thin to counter the pressure of the combustion inside, at which point the thing would leak and burn or even explode. Solid rocket fuel is probably weaker per unit mass than aluminium or whatever they make the shells of these things off, and then it would be more efficient to make that outer shell out of aluminium rather than rocket fuel. At which point you'd have an ordinary solid fuel rocket.

Quote:

Another alternative to this method is 'balloon rocket'. The balloon-rocket will float to high altitude and fire up on it own. Most likely the balloon-rocket will be carried by a booster to 150km altitude. At 150km the balloon-rocket will be inflated from the top of the booster and ignited. In this alternative the high pressure pumps will be required to feed the rocket's engines. The size of the balloon at high altitude will play insignificant part in atmospheric drag.

Unfortunately, that same atmosphere that gives drag also gives the balloon its lift. Launching a rocket from under a balloon has been suggested and done before though, by e.g. JP Aerospace.

Turning things requires power and compressing also requires power. However I do see a little something in a "flare" Like for roadside emergency payload on top as the flare type motor burns it's way toward the payload. do you follow that?

Yes, I follow you, I like that. It's simple. What kind of fuel do you think to propose?

Monroe wrote:

Turning things requires power and compressing also requires power. However I do see a little something in a "flare" Like for roadside emergency payload on top as the flare type motor burns it's way toward the payload. do you follow that?

Well I dont think thats enough. There needs to be a nozzle. Hypothetically just say you use Carbon-fiber to contain standard AP propellant and a nozzle that is held on the end by three rods that run the length as the propellant burns the nozzle is drawn up the rods (perferably by gas pressure) and feeds the shell into the combustion chamber. Perhaps the rods are inside the shell and are consumed as well?

Monroe

One more thing I have seen an interesting phenomenon before where the burning in a tube formed a pile of sludge just past the burning portion that formed a nozzle of sorts on its own I believe it had something to do with the sonic property's of the tube. The end did burn away but not in the area just past the combustion. I remember now it was an underwater welding rod (the air flows inside the underwater welding rod) play with one enough and you'll see what I mean (use HP air). There may be a way to tune the pipe to form a nozzle of this type. Perhaps it was in between the first and second mach diamond or just in front of the first?

Can you video this phenomenon and post on youtube? Even if it's not possible to video directly you may point in the video what happens over time by pointing at the tool you're using, maybe fire it up. I can sense that it's something interesting occurring but I can't fully visualize because I'm not machinist.

Monroe wrote:

Well I dont think thats enough. There needs to be a nozzle. Hypothetically just say you use Carbon-fiber to contain standard AP propellant and a nozzle that is held on the end by three rods that run the length as the propellant burns the nozzle is drawn up the rods (perferably by gas pressure) and feeds the shell into the combustion chamber. Perhaps the rods are inside the shell and are consumed as well?

Monroe

One more thing I have seen an interesting phenomenon before where the burning in a tube formed a pile of sludge just past the burning portion that formed a nozzle of sorts on its own I believe it had something to do with the sonic property's of the tube. The end did burn away but not in the area just past the combustion. I remember now it was an underwater welding rod (the air flows inside the underwater welding rod) play with one enough and you'll see what I mean (use HP air). There may be a way to tune the pipe to form a nozzle of this type. Perhaps it was in between the first and second mach diamond or just in front of the first?

I believe you are correct that it is interesting, but that was 25 years ago and I don't have access to that rig anymore in fact that one would be considered an antique and I believe it was an interesting design anyway underwater arc welding was pretty new back then. It may have even been the first one for all I know. I do know I was the only guy that would use it and I played with it a lot. I shot different dive gasses thru it and such just to see what it would do.

I missed the point exactly below this text. Here it is you provided another way towards implementation of consumable propellant tanks. There are several ways toward implementation of consumable tanks for rockets.

Monroe wrote:

Well I dont think thats enough. There needs to be a nozzle. Hypothetically just say you use Carbon-fiber to contain standard AP propellant and a nozzle that is held on the end by three rods that run the length as the propellant burns the nozzle is drawn up the rods (perferably by gas pressure) and feeds the shell into the combustion chamber. Perhaps the rods are inside the shell and are consumed as well?

Monroe

One more thing I have seen an interesting phenomenon before where the burning in a tube formed a pile of sludge just past the burning portion that formed a nozzle of sorts on its own I believe it had something to do with the sonic property's of the tube. The end did burn away but not in the area just past the combustion. I remember now it was an underwater welding rod (the air flows inside the underwater welding rod) play with one enough and you'll see what I mean (use HP air). There may be a way to tune the pipe to form a nozzle of this type. Perhaps it was in between the first and second mach diamond or just in front of the first?